Well, they got write up about how to get the sunlight into underground for parks. That makes me curious and interested.
I wish I am still around to see it.
Apache helicopter crash landed in Woodlands
- Thread starter sbs99
- Start date
Well, they got write up about how to get the sunlight into underground for parks. That makes me curious and interested.
I wish I am still around to see it.
Then why so many Golf Course and Country Clubs. Funny how we Singaporeans contradict ourselves.
Sorry all, OT again.
crashed landing in an open field. No fatalities, no injuries. What is better than this? Accidents happen everywhere. Do we really need "heads to roll" everytime something happened?
I am sure a crash into HDB causing the entire block to collaspe with hundreds dead or injured, and likely suspicion of terrorist attack would make for a better story. But let's keep to the fact, the pilots did a darn good job to crash safely into open field.
I am sure a crash into HDB causing the entire block to collaspe with hundreds dead or injured, and likely suspicion of terrorist attack would make for a better story. But let's keep to the fact, the pilots did a darn good job to crash safely into open field.
hmm.. that's a very good question.. Actually, I'm in no position to "expect" anything.. but let's consider how the matter might be handled..
Probably, a team will be set up to investigation more about the incidents. The experts will gather information like the location, attitude, condition etc.. about the incidents, and a group of experts and experienced pilots will study and probably turn up 3 types of scenarios.. (for example only)
A) Given the location (say, in the middle of some densely populated area), attitude (say, very close to ground), condition (strong wind, low visibility, whatever) etc.. it is almost impossible to fly the bird to some "safe place" to land.. a crash with heavy casualty is near inevitable.
B) Given the location (say, some distance from unpopulated area), attitude (say, some distance from ground), condition (no wind, good visibility, whatever) etc.. any pilot worth their salt could fly the bird to safe ground, but damaged to bird is inevitable.
C) Given the location (say, just above unpopulated area), attitude (sufficient distance for any maneuver ), condition (no wind, good visibility, whatever) etc.. Any pilot could have landed safely w/o damage to bird or property.
If their finding point to A, then, the pilots have done a great job! Well done! Impressive! They truly deserve medals and recognition for exceptional performance.
If their finding point to B, then, the pilots did what is expected of them. Good job nevertheless.. At least, they performed to expectations.
If their findings point to C.......... then, all the "good job" comments have probably just been served too early..
So, I would reserve my comments on whether or not it is "good job" w/o further information from the authorities.
Nevertheless, I want to say that, Being a pilot is already something extraordinary.. not everyone can be a pilot. let's not talk about how difficult it is to fly an helicopter.
So, let's consider the incident based on the fact that it is a "trained pilot" flying a malfunctioned helicopter, and not a layman flying it. It is not extraordinary for a "pilot" to be able to fly a malfunctioned helicopter if it is part of the training, unless the "unexpected" that happened is something "extraordinary". And that part of the puzzle is something that is not reveal to the public yet, I guess.
So, let's consider the incident based on the fact that it is a "trained pilot" flying a malfunctioned helicopter, and not a layman flying it. It is not extraordinary for a "pilot" to be able to fly a malfunctioned helicopter if it is part of the training, unless the "unexpected" that happened is something "extraordinary". And that part of the puzzle is something that is not reveal to the public yet, I guess.
Last edited:
Yup, i think it is a job well done. The pilot did what he should do in such situation.
since Singapore is such a safe haven - no strong wind, no missile launched, etc. It is likely to be one of those mechanical or electrical fault. Boeing will probably point to maintenance issue since the Apache has been in operation for quite a long time in RSAF. Now assuming if it is really a lapse in maintenance, will the technicians be court marshalled?
Last edited:
this 'malfunction' we're talking about is a twin engine failure.
Under this kind of circumstances, the pilot is forced to perform an autorotation landing which is similar to 'gliding' an airplane to the ground. However because the helicopter is unpowered, it is very much at the mercy of the wind.
Heli pilots are trained to do autorotations all the time but they always do it under comfortable conditions of knowing the airfield elevation, knowing that they are flying into headwind, knowing that they can bail out in the event of a bad approach.
the pilot can choose to steer his aircraft in any direction but things can be deadly if you steer into tail wind. Seeing how near the emergency landing site is to SBAB, it must have been untoward conditions that forced the pilots to make the decision to land on an empty patch just outside SBAB.
The tailstrike is minor and is probably the most common form of damage occuring to helis. There can be many causes for it. If the pilot flares too early, you get a hard landing and tailstrike. If he flares too late, he will raise the nose too high causing the tail to 'dig into' the ground and cause damage.
Thankfully the pilots are fine, that no one was hurt, that no property was damaged. Money is just....money. Doesn't bother me even though im a taxpayer.
Under this kind of circumstances, the pilot is forced to perform an autorotation landing which is similar to 'gliding' an airplane to the ground. However because the helicopter is unpowered, it is very much at the mercy of the wind.
Heli pilots are trained to do autorotations all the time but they always do it under comfortable conditions of knowing the airfield elevation, knowing that they are flying into headwind, knowing that they can bail out in the event of a bad approach.
the pilot can choose to steer his aircraft in any direction but things can be deadly if you steer into tail wind. Seeing how near the emergency landing site is to SBAB, it must have been untoward conditions that forced the pilots to make the decision to land on an empty patch just outside SBAB.
The tailstrike is minor and is probably the most common form of damage occuring to helis. There can be many causes for it. If the pilot flares too early, you get a hard landing and tailstrike. If he flares too late, he will raise the nose too high causing the tail to 'dig into' the ground and cause damage.
Thankfully the pilots are fine, that no one was hurt, that no property was damaged. Money is just....money. Doesn't bother me even though im a taxpayer.
wow seriously, you do hav a lot of free time. how about coming up with the endless possibilities that can occur?
in any emergency malfunction, the priority should be to prevent casualty and damage to property. also, i believe the pilots would have radioed control abt their situation.
well granted that the tail is gone but i personally don't think that is a big issue. at least the bird is still in a upright position.
Perhaps you're rite..
twin engine failure is like once in 50 years thing.. on the bright side, hey, there's no casualty.. Good job by the pilot. let's move on and forget about the damaged bird..
orchard road flood is also once in a blue moon thing.. on the bright side, there's no casualty and >99% of SG is not flooded.. Good job by the PUB..
mas selamat escape happened only once.. on the bright side, there's no casualty and >99% of others under custody did not escape.. Good job by the MHA..
The layman won't understand the technical difficulties and challenges that these pple or authorities faced.. Accidents do happen.... Let's move on..
:devil:
twin engine failure is like once in 50 years thing.. on the bright side, hey, there's no casualty.. Good job by the pilot. let's move on and forget about the damaged bird..
orchard road flood is also once in a blue moon thing.. on the bright side, there's no casualty and >99% of SG is not flooded.. Good job by the PUB..
mas selamat escape happened only once.. on the bright side, there's no casualty and >99% of others under custody did not escape.. Good job by the MHA..
The layman won't understand the technical difficulties and challenges that these pple or authorities faced.. Accidents do happen.... Let's move on..
:devil:
come'on lah... anybody who has served the army before knows that there will be a chain of actions taken by mindef to investigate.
watever speculation you put forth will be purely for entertainment sake rather then for healthy discussion. it is not like mindef will give a sh1t abt you...
when you dislike somebody, no matter what the person did or did not do, you also won't be happy...
There are alot of "maybes" here...but a outcome with no casualties is still not good enough? some ppl really have high expectations...or maybe some ppl just feel that the repairs costs to the helicopters are borned by tax payers so they will expecting better stuff from the pilots...
there goes the variable bonus for the pilots.....
There are alot of "maybes" here...but a outcome with no casualties is still not good enough? some ppl really have high expectations...or maybe some ppl just feel that the repairs costs to the helicopters are borned by tax payers so they will expecting better stuff from the pilots...
there goes the variable bonus for the pilots.....
In the first place I never speculate.. or try to discuss the possibilities..
my only "real" comment on the discussion is that the fact is the helicopter is badly damaged and I will not consider it a "good job" unless the findings conclude that it is a indeed a "good job".
the other comments are to explain why I do not consider it a "good job" as yet. I would rather get more information before making any judgement.
Seems that many are generous with their praises.. so be it..
And maybe the pilots will give a lot of Sh1t abt you.
To each his own.
my only "real" comment on the discussion is that the fact is the helicopter is badly damaged and I will not consider it a "good job" unless the findings conclude that it is a indeed a "good job".
the other comments are to explain why I do not consider it a "good job" as yet. I would rather get more information before making any judgement.
Seems that many are generous with their praises.. so be it..
And maybe the pilots will give a lot of Sh1t abt you.
To each his own.
no.. it's not a clear cut good or not.
Like I mentioned, it depends on the situation. if the pilot perform beyond expectation, they deserve praises, even if the helicopter is damaged, or the helicopter crashed into fireball but with zero civilian casualties. They still can be regarded as hero.
If the pilot did not perform to expectation, then.. if you still feel that they should be praised, so be it.
the unknown is whether the pilots performed to reasonable expectations.
Nah, that would givd them enough to buy that 100 f35s they were supposedly interested in :bsmilie:
Apache landing due to corroded valve
By Mustafa Shafawi | Posted: 18 October 2010 1509 hrs
SINGAPORE: Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean said investigations showed that a defective component in an Apache helicopter was the cause for an emergency landing last month.
The defective component led to the loss of power and shut-down of both engines during flight, forcing pilots to make an emergency landing in an open field in Woodlands.
Speaking in Parliament, Mr Teo said the defective component was the Anti-Ice Start Bleed Valve (AISBV).
The AISBV in both engines were found internally corroded when opened up by the manufacturer.
The defect was caused by corrosion in the valve which occurred over time.
The investigation then focused on why the AISBV was corroded.
Mr Teo said there was no evidence that there were manufacturing defects in those valves.
The RSAF maintenance crew have also followed the required maintenance procedures specified by the manufacturer for the aircraft, including the AISBV.
Prior to this, there were no reported incidents of the same nature.
Currently, there are no stipulated maintenance checks that would allow such internal corrosion in the AISBV to be detected by the maintainers.
The Defence Minister said the maintenance procedure does not call for the RSAF to open up the AISBV.
This can be done only by the manufacturer.
As stipulated by the manufacturer, the AISBV needs to be replaced only after a fault code appears in the aircraft computer during flight, or when running the engine on the ground for tests.
Mr Teo said the maintenance procedures are now being studied with the manufacturers to see if they need to be modified.
This is so that corrosion which occurs inside a valve can be prevented, detected and corrected should it occur.
To ensure the helicopters are fitted only with valves that operate properly, Mr Teo said the RSAF will replace all existing valves and the engines tested thoroughly before each helicopter is cleared for flying.
Having also reviewed and established that the RSAF's maintenance, flight and training safety procedures are sound, Mr Teo said the Apache and the SeaHawk helicopters would progressively resume flying this week.
By Mustafa Shafawi | Posted: 18 October 2010 1509 hrs
SINGAPORE: Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean said investigations showed that a defective component in an Apache helicopter was the cause for an emergency landing last month.
The defective component led to the loss of power and shut-down of both engines during flight, forcing pilots to make an emergency landing in an open field in Woodlands.
Speaking in Parliament, Mr Teo said the defective component was the Anti-Ice Start Bleed Valve (AISBV).
The AISBV in both engines were found internally corroded when opened up by the manufacturer.
The defect was caused by corrosion in the valve which occurred over time.
The investigation then focused on why the AISBV was corroded.
Mr Teo said there was no evidence that there were manufacturing defects in those valves.
The RSAF maintenance crew have also followed the required maintenance procedures specified by the manufacturer for the aircraft, including the AISBV.
Prior to this, there were no reported incidents of the same nature.
Currently, there are no stipulated maintenance checks that would allow such internal corrosion in the AISBV to be detected by the maintainers.
The Defence Minister said the maintenance procedure does not call for the RSAF to open up the AISBV.
This can be done only by the manufacturer.
As stipulated by the manufacturer, the AISBV needs to be replaced only after a fault code appears in the aircraft computer during flight, or when running the engine on the ground for tests.
Mr Teo said the maintenance procedures are now being studied with the manufacturers to see if they need to be modified.
This is so that corrosion which occurs inside a valve can be prevented, detected and corrected should it occur.
To ensure the helicopters are fitted only with valves that operate properly, Mr Teo said the RSAF will replace all existing valves and the engines tested thoroughly before each helicopter is cleared for flying.
Having also reviewed and established that the RSAF's maintenance, flight and training safety procedures are sound, Mr Teo said the Apache and the SeaHawk helicopters would progressively resume flying this week.
Looks like the Manufacturer may need to issue a FCO ( Field Check/Change Order) worldwide for all models of helicopter having such component. Well, looks like the pilots have done a good job to minimize the damage with such serious mechanical fault. :thumbsup:
Similar threads
